A case study of curriculum controversy :the Virginia Standards of Learning for history and the social sciences

View/Open

Date

Author

Metadata

Abstract

Curriculum-making is a political exercise in which various groups in a society
struggle over whose knowledge and values will be perpetuated through the school curriculum.
As such, curriculum-making sometimes creates controversy. Controversy often accompanies
the development of social studies curriculum because the purpose of social studies education
is the preparation of the young for citizenship. Individuals disagree over what characteristics
define the good citizen, as well as what knowledge and skills are necessary for effective
citizenship. This study examines the political dimensions of social studies curriculum making
in the controversy surrounding the development of the Virginia Standards of
Learning for History and the Social Sciences.

Using historical and qualitative methodology, the researcher collected and analyzed
data from public documents, meetings of the Virginia Board of Education and its Advisory
and Editing Committees, news articles, and transcripts from semi-structured interviews with
eight key participants in the development of the social studies Standards of Learning.
Analyses of these data sources showed that two primary groups struggled over control of the
process of developing the standards, Governor Allen's education team and the professional
social studies community under the leadership of the Virginia Consortium of Social Studies
Specialists and College Educators. A third important force in the debate was the Virginia
Board of Education, from which a small group of its members authored the final standards
document.

Further, this study showed two contextual influences on the Virginia social studies
standards. The first was the Reagan rhetoric on academic crisis and educational reform
through the establishment of tougher academic standards based on the traditional curriculum.
The second was the recent controversy in Virginia over outcomes-based education. These
two contextual influences combined to create a distrust of professional expertise.

Three reciprocally related themes emerged from the data. Participants used power,
rhetoric, and ideology to define the boundaries of the debate, control the process, name who
could participate, and detennine the outcome of the development process. Disagreements
between the two major sides in the debate involved ideological differences over the nature of
knowledge and learning and the nature of social studies education. There were also
ideological differences among major participants over social issues like civil rights, gender
issues, religion, and religious conflicts.